Razbam F-102 Flight Model

[Sideshow]

Hi all, I'm considering purchasing the Razbam F-102 but I would like to clarify something before I do so.

I have noticed from several different sources (including Razbam's own forum) that there were/are some problems with the aircraft's flight model. My question is have they been addressed? I can't see any evidence that they have, but I wanted to make sure.

I asked this same question a few days ago on the Razbam forum but activity there seems non existent, hence why I'm now asking here.

Thanks in advance.

 

[1970LT1]

I bought this bird about two months ago. The model is beautiful and hi-res paints are available for it, but it won't take off without mostly defueling it to reduce weight, and then adding fuel after it's in the air. Just really tough to get it in the air. The FM hasn't been fixed, although I'm told it was supposed to be, and I think the chances are even less now that it's becoming an older release. If you're looking for a delta that flies seemingly right, I'd get the Skysim Mirage or Alphasim F-106. F-102 not recommended.

Regards,

LT1

 

[PRB]

Well, I have the RAZBAM F-102, and I can take off with a full fuel load just fine. You do need a long (long) runway, but she will take off. This is consistent with what I have read about all the "Century Series" and "Nifty-50s" jets.

 

[hschuit]

As for most delta wing fighters in FSX it is critical to use the right take off technique. This works for me: Do NOT rotate till you reach ~175 kts. Increasing AoA with a delta wing adds a lot of drag, which does not help if you still try to accelerate down the runway.

As for the FDE, the F-102 AIR file is very similar to the Alphasim F-106 one, so the basics should be right. I only tweaked the weights, control and engine parameters a bit; below the updated sections from my aircraft.cfg :

[weight_and_balance]
max_gross_weight =31539
empty_weight =19350
reference_datum_position = 0, 0, 0
empty_weight_CG_position = 2, 0, 0
empty_weight_pitch_MOI =56681
empty_weight_roll_MOI =20293
empty_weight_yaw_MOI =54332
empty_weight_coupled_MOI =0
CG_forward_limit = 0
CG_aft_limit = 1
max_number_of_stations= 2
station_load.0= 175, 13.0, 0.0, 0.8, Pilot
station_load.1= 714, 0.0, 0.0,-3.0, 6xAIM-4 Falcon

[GeneralEngineData]
//0=Piston, 1=Jet, 2=None, 3=Helo-Turbine, 4=Rocket, 5=Turboprop
engine_type = 1
fuel_flow_scalar = 1.0
min_throttle_limit = -0.25
engine.0 = -24.0, 0.0, 0.0

[TurbineEngineData]
//Pratt & Whitney J57-P-25
//Dry thrust 11200 lbs / wet 17200 lbs (ratio 1.536)
fuel_flow_gain=0.004
inlet_area=6.067
rated_N2_rpm=9976
static_thrust=11200
afterburner_available=6
afterburner_throttle_threshold = 0.80
reverser_available=0
ThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 1.2
AfterBurnThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 2.1

[flight_tuning]
cruise_lift_scalar =1.000
parasite_drag_scalar =1.000
induced_drag_scalar =1.000
elevator_effectiveness =1.000
aileron_effectiveness =1.100
rudder_effectiveness =1.400
pitch_stability =1.000
roll_stability =1.000
yaw_stability =1.000
elevator_trim_effectiveness =0.800
aileron_trim_effectiveness =1.000
rudder_trim_effectiveness =1.000

You also need the updated F-102.air file with updated engine tables (included in the ZIP file attached below)

For who is interested: The Panel_deuce.zip contains an additional gauge + updated panel.cfg which adds a more realistic dragchute effect. Upon dragchute deployment, a high drag "superflap" is activated. For it to work, you also need to replace the aircraft.cfg [Flaps.0] section with these lines:

[Flaps.0]
// Dragchute XML "superflap"
type= 1
span-outboard= 0.500
extending-time= 1.000
system_type= 0
damaging-speed= 0.000
blowout-speed= 0.000
lift_scalar= 0.000
drag_scalar= 1.0
pitch_scalar= 0.000
flaps-position.0=0
flaps-position.1=400 // adjust values between 250 - 500 to decrease/increase chute drag


Finally, I think the RAZBAM F-102 is a beauty, love the exterior model and the VC and it is very frame rate friendly.

 

[CheckSix]

The F-102 was a bear to fly by any account. It was barely supersonic if at all if weather variables were not favourable. It did take one heck of a long take off roll, it did'nt handle as well as expected and was indeed a great disapointment.

Personaly I love RAZBAM's 102, a couple of niggles but nothing to detract from enjoying the model.

 

[hschuit]

Another tricky thing is the limited visibility on finals as the canopy structure and gunsight are blocking your view to the runway. One option is performing a curved approach, the other is adding a VC view which shifts your eyepoint to the right.

These are the additional aircraft.cfg [CameraDefinition.n] section lines:

[CameraDefinition.004]
Title = "Landing View"
Guid = {8ff6c134-098d-409f-baec-caba3f683f99}
Origin = Virtual Cockpit
MomentumEffect = TRUE
SnapPbhAdjust = Swivel
SnapPbhReturn = True
PanPbhAdjust = Swivel
PanPbhReturn = False
Track = None
ShowAxis = FALSE
AllowZoom = TRUE
InitialZoom = 1.0
SmoothZoomTime = 2.0
ZoomPanScalar = 1.0
ShowWeather = Yes
XyzAdjust = TRUE
ShowLensFlare=FALSE
Category = Cockpit
PitchPanRate=100
HeadingPanRate=100
InitialXyz=0.14034, -0.020082, 0.17297
InitialPbh=0, 0, 0

 

[peter12213]

Personally I love this aircraft worth every penny!

 

[Sideshow]

Thanks for the replies everyone. It would appear that the general consensus seems to be that it is good as is. I understand that deltas of this vintage can be a handful to fly and am expecting nothing less.

It was just that Unicornman indicated on the Razbam forum that there would be an FDE update around August last year but there is no indication that it had ever been completed.

hschuit, thanks for posting all your tweeks. If I do get it I will look into these.

 

[Prowler1111]

Gents:
1st all i would like to thank hschuit for the tweaks posted here, thanks for the help in this matter.
While by no means this should be taken as an excuse, but more than an apology, RAZBAM , besides the priceless contributors, is mainly a one man show, sometimes is very hard to be on top of things, and i´m really in debt regarding the 102 .air corrected file, this is not by any mean a fault from Unicorman (our flight dynamics expert) but a code compilation error overlooked by me at the end.Yes, it flies like a 1950´s early delta jet, but as Unicorman man says, if we do a close to real flight dynamics, a few will be able to actually fly the thing (which makes you think about the real pilots on those early days), now that doesn´t mean we are toning down the FD´s but make it a bit more enjoyable to casual simmers, thus making the product more enjoyable (there is no use for an unflyable addon).Currently, RAZBAM is under a HUGE re-engineering, new web site, more friendly forums and hopefully a more direct customer-developer relationship.Not to mention a more accurate and detailed cockpits (what we call the "Busy Cockpit" concept)with functionality up to the real thing within FSX limits, but without a major price revision (there is no place for usd 40+ addons in our biz structure) and we WILL revisit ALL of our "old" (FS9) releases, in the F-102 case, we´ll revamp it FREE OF CHARGE but i can´t give dates, the coming A-7 Corsair II addon will be the benchmark RAZBAM will produce it´s addons.
For those enjoying the F-102, thanks for the faith, for those thinking of buying it, if you like flying by the seat of your pants, this might be your addon, and for all, the F-102 revamping is more than a promise but a commitment to all of you who believe in us.
Best regards

Ron Zambrano aka Prowler1111

 

[CheckSix]

Ron:

 

[1970LT1]

Well, it's certainly strange how it works for some and not others. I was able to nail t/o and landings in the other two delta's mentioned above on the first try. Yet, with the 102, I use correct rotation speed and alpha, and I cross the end of a two mile runway doing 240 knots and still not having lifted off. Certainly hope the updated airfile comes out in the future. Otherwise, a pretty a/c. I like the PA ANG scheme especially.

Regards,

LT1

 

[Kiwikat]

and we WILL revisit ALL of our "old" (FS9) releases

Does that mean we will have the Skyhawks in FSX with this new level of realism? I sure hope so!

 

[Sideshow]

Ron, thank you for taking the time to repond to my query. Developers that are willing to stand by their product get my full respect :salute:

 

[Prowler1111]

Does that mean we will have the Skyhawks in FSX with this new level of realism? I sure hope so!

Yes, there are already layed out, 3d meshes and all, but no moving until we get all the necessary code working, not just the A-4´s, but the A-6 as well, and in the A-6 case, you will need someone to fly with you! ..

Sideshow

Ron, thank you for taking the time to repond to my query. Developers that are willing to stand by their product get my full respect :salute:​

Thanks....I do respect my customers as well..

Best regards
Prowler

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Bone]

Well, it's certainly strange how it works for some and not others. I was able to nail t/o and landings in the other two delta's mentioned above on the first try. Yet, with the 102, I use correct rotation speed and alpha, and I cross the end of a two mile runway doing 240 knots and still not having lifted off. Certainly hope the updated airfile comes out in the future. Otherwise, a pretty a/c. I like the PA ANG scheme especially.

Regards,

LT1

What kind of trim setting do you have? Some models require a healthy nose up trim setting to get off the ground.

 

[DaveQ]

Well, it's certainly strange how it works for some and not others. I was able to nail t/o and landings in the other two delta's mentioned above on the first try. Yet, with the 102, I use correct rotation speed and alpha, and I cross the end of a two mile runway doing 240 knots and still not having lifted off. Certainly hope the updated airfile comes out in the future. Otherwise, a pretty a/c. I like the PA ANG scheme especially.

Regards,

LT1

There seem to be quite a few fixes you can apply to this; the one I had was to use the afterburner thrust as the static thrust setting in the aircraft.cfg file (17200 lbs.). The second is stacks of positive trim and the third and best is the mods to the aircraft.cfg file and .air file posted by hschuit earlier in the thread. I've just done mine and it works a treat; static thrust is correct and the aircraft comes off the runway smoothly (instead of leaping off like a scared cat 10 ft from the threshold!!) and lands easily enough for a 1950's delta. Of the three Convair deltas it's way the easiest to fly IMHO; it's only a bit of a handfull, as opposed the the AS F-106 which is a bitch and the AS B-58 which is a complete bitch!!!

All in all this is a delightful model that looks good and flies well as modified. Many thanks Ron and hschuit!

DaveQ

 

[Sideshow]

Well I finally took the plunge and bought the F-102... and the A-6... and the EA-6B :isadizzy:

Initial impressions are very good and although I haven't as yet applied your tweeks hscuit i will try them out soon. Been doing my initial flights out of Edwards so runway length isn't an issue.

Thanks to everyone for your opinions. Now I cannot wait for the A-7 :salute:

 

[DaveQ]

I know it's a bit of own-trumpet blowing but you might be interested in the set of 8 new textures I posted to Flightsim.com last year. These are 2048 x 2048 texture sets that replace some of the originals and add a couple of new ones.

DaveQ

 

[CheckSix]

Glad you like it Sideshow

 

[Sideshow]

I know it's a bit of own-trumpet blowing but you might be interested in the set of 8 new textures I posted to Flightsim.com last year. These are 2048 x 2048 texture sets that replace some of the originals and add a couple of new ones.

DaveQ

Thanks for the heads up. I already have your Spittin' Kittens repaint for the Alphasim F-106 from here.